Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 13, 2011 8:52am-9:22am PDT

8:52 am
and they had issues within the moratorium, with a building at the end of the pier. when this issue was raised, it was very sensitive to respond to, and the ports commission had laborious conditions that would have been much cheaper for the architect. >> this has been proposed through sequa. >> they are similar. since it has been on an ad hoc basis, there has been variation, because many different consultants would review different pieces of research that had been done. we spend and dedicated two or three years looking at the issue and consolidating it, looking at
8:53 am
what we hoped were research considerations. a lot of people talk about high buildings, and that is not what their research we reviewed seemed to indicate was the problem. it seemed to indicate that the problem was more birds congregating in a specific area, open space, and that is why we did the board collision zone in the lower 60 feet of the building -- the bird collisions -- collision zone. supervisor wiener: with changes, the board would monitor that it changes where appropriate? >> yes, and as i mentioned, there is already inherent flexibility. somebody signs off that this is a new approach that would satisfy the objectives of the ordinance. they would be able to approve the project with that approach
8:54 am
in mind, and since we initiated this work, at least for the last year, we have been reviewing the pipeline projects with the night that this might be adopted. -- with an eye that this might be adopted, a treasure rhineland, bayview hunters point, and they were consistent, -- adopted, treasure island. supervisor wiener: thanks. supervisor mar: we do have a letter from the director, and i would suspect that she will speak a little later. i forgot that the minor amendment i am making is on page 6, lines 3 to 6, under wind generation, and my colleagues already have the non substantive language, and under the wind generation, is that wind generators in this area comply with the planning department permit requirements, including
8:55 am
monitoring what impact that the department may require, and it strikes the four words, that we work this out with your office but also with the woman and the mayor's office as well, so we are hoping that this amendment is one that everyone can support. thank you, ms. rogers. mispick >> good afternoon, it supervisors. -- >> good afternoon, supervisors. there are about 400 species of birds in the city. some are well adapted to urban life, but others are migratory and go south in the fall to their winter feeding grounds as far as south america and then return north in the spring to
8:56 am
breeding grounds as far as the arctic. san francisco is on the pacific flyway, major for many birds. those least familiar with the urban setting are at greatest risk from hazards in the environment. over 1 million birds depend on the san francisco bay each year. u.s. fish and wildlife stated that 50% sent of the birds that travel the pacific flyway spend some time in or around the bay, which includes san francisco. during migration, on foggy or stormy nights, birds that migrate using the stars and moon to navigate become confused by light pollution. birds can become confused by glass in the urban environment. they have worked to make changes to reduce bird mortality. in 2008, the san francisco
8:57 am
planning commission, animal control, and welfare commission, department of the agreement and board of supervisors supported the voluntary situation. this made san francco the west coast leader. the program has since spread to over 25 cities. while lights out for boards has been positive, it needs to expand. -- lights out for birds. in 2009, golden gate audubon participated as part of the mayor's task force on urban wind. they call for property owners to do monitoring and to share the results. documented, biological monitoring information from new wind technology is needed to inform the public as the demand for alternative forms of energy grows.
8:58 am
this has involved in two birds in flight. -- this has involved to include birds in flight. birds do not recognize glass as a solid object to be avoided. they fly into glass avoiding a predator, defending territory, or when attempting to reach vegetation reflected in or on the other side of the glass. a professor of ornithology and conservation biology has steadied and published extensively on birds and windows for over 30 years. this doctor says the reflective glass as windowpanes in houses or walls of multistory commercial buildings is a passive, invisible killer of wild birds worldwide. among the dead are the abundance as well as the rare, the threatened and endangered species. investigators have gathered
8:59 am
extensive evidence documenting sheet glass as a glowing -- growing source of avian mortality and a suspected contributor to over robert population decline. preventing these unintended fatalities will require education addressing preventive techniques, addressing the installation of glass in buildings, and enforcement of legislation to protect wild birds as anesthetic and environmentally valuable natural resources. the planning department worked with the american board conservancy and golden gate audubon to develop these standards for bird-safe buildings. there was a presentation on draft standards which were open for comment from october 2009 through july of this year. i am sorry. october 2010 to july of this year. this past spring, we encourage to the planning department to
9:00 am
apply for a grant in support of migratory birds, and in july, san francisco was recognized as one of only 10 u.s. cities under the urban conservation treaty for migratory birds, and as ann mentioned, it was granted. in july, the planning commission approved the standards or board- safe buildings, covering lighting, glass, when a technology, and other items -- standards for burdett-save buildings -- bird-saafe buildings. we encourage you to seize this opportunity to adapt these standards. san francisco can be a leader for the future of birds and the people of the city. thank you.
9:01 am
supervisor mar: thank you, miss, 43 years of working in the partnership with the city, as well. i did want to ask, various institutions, did they give any input through the three-year process, or even for that when the period for comment? >> i think they went directly to planning. supervisor mar: ms. rogers may be able to respond. >> i will lead to introduce another person, ms. lovejoy. -- i would like to introduce another person. >> as was mentioned, we received over 20 to wonder letters on these proposed policies, so the was quite a bit of interest, and the majority of folks were in support of what we were proposing. to let you know, we did contact
9:02 am
the american society of landscape architects and others, in the san francisco aia, the california business properties administration. we contacted the commission on the environment and policy committee. we talked to the academy of science, as we mentioned earlier, and listed some of the research efforts, and they are interested and also doing outreach activities with us on the topic. the sierra club, other bird organizations, like the bird conservancy, also local organizations, san francisco animal care and control, and talked to them about some of the birds they were fighting. the state of california building standards coated gaiseric committee, the department of building inspection -- building standards code advisory
9:03 am
committee. we actually did inc. number of the initial comments of aia in our initial policy. we made changes based on some of their technical recommendations, and we also had meetings and met with a number of architectural interests in the city to get their feedback. we talked to before most researchers and scientists on this topic, and they had input on this policy, as well as other developers, land use attorneys, and others. supervisor mar: thank you so much for the great land use -- for the great outreach. colleagues, any more questions? let's open this up. we are going to open this up for public comment, and we said a two-minute maximum.
9:04 am
are there any other department of speakers? i have one speaker card, michael lyons, and i know that margie is here from aia, as well, and if anyone else would like to speak, please come forward. >> good afternoon, land use. ♪ spread your tiny wings and fly away and make these buildings safe make it safe for me and building news, and if you knew i would, i would fly away birds with you spread your tiny wings and fly away, and make an -- it bird safe.
9:05 am
the buildings, make it safe for me and you, and if you knew i would, i would fly away with you, too ♪ supervisor mar: mr. lyons. overhead. no, it should work. >> sorry about that. i apologize. my name is michael lyons. i am the conservation director at the golden gate audubon society, and i would like to add to some of the things that maureen said and that ann marie said, too. the overhead that i put up that
9:06 am
you cannot see well is an estimate of migratory bird mortality in the united states, and it is roughly 5 billion to 6 billion per year, according to the one of my service, and you can break that down too many sources. the last of habitat. outside catskill about 1 billion birds a year, and collisions -- outside cats kill about 1 billion birds a year. instead, there is this idea of a death by a 1000 cuts, in this case, death by very large cuts. today is a positive step to reverse one of those cuts, a positive contribution, which if others followed in the aggregate will have significant positive effects on my return bird -- on migratory bird populations. if we want to be concerned with
9:07 am
our local and national migratory bird populations, then these are the kinds of steps we need to take. one step at a time reducing the impact on birds in order to make california a safer place for them. so we would ask you again to support this, to pass it along, to recommend to the board that they pass it. we think that it is fair. it is pragmatic, and as ann marie says, it does not negate all mortality, but it is a positive step. i also want to express great gratitude for the city planning department for all of the work they have put on this. we appreciate it. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. >> thanks for accepting comment. my name is -- i am an avian
9:08 am
researcher. i am involved in band recovery data. these bands are mostly recovered by bands that are found deceased, and we know that very often they have been killed by collisions with glass buildings. my experience is that people who work locally in the field of avian study and wildlife rehabilitation -- these birds have nearly identical considerations and behavior's with those that migrate in san francisco. their flight mechanisms are the same. their vision is the same. the types of obstacles the encounter in the urban environment are the same. the only difference is the particular flyaway that they use. -- fly-way that they use. there are measures for reducing building bird strikes. in my opinion, there is no comparison. for the over 20% of americans to
9:09 am
identify as a bird watchers, -- as bird watchers, they spent quite a bit of money. but economically, that does not come close to the biological use of birds as controllers of rodents and insects. birds are the primary control for these. there are tremendous losses on a scale we can only try to imagine. we are literally dependent on birds. in the 1970's, when glass- encased facilities became popular, we did not realize that birds would not recognize them and fall -- and fly at them in full flight. we did not know that then, but we do now, and there are many studies that prove it now. we have today an opportunity to mitigate for that. supervisor mar: thank you so much.
9:10 am
how is it going? >> supervisors, margie, aia san francisco. i just wanted to correct one thing from earlier. i called the planning department and wanted to make some of that initial commentary when we heard that the legislation was first being developed, but we were not part of that initial advisory process. i just want to clarify that. the planning department working closely with advocate groups has created a piece of legislation that is aspirational but, frankly, not operational, given today's environment. we support creating bird friendly buildings, but they have to be on terms that are actually achievable. the design of a building is a complicated process, design, client goals being just a few of the challenges that architects have in creating a building. architects did they try to create buildings with the lowest
9:11 am
possible carbon footprint and using sustainable products. unfortunately, the legislation before you includes many design strategies that are not economical in this climate. one of the favored solutions is a type of glass, which may be what you have here, i am not sure. i actually called the distributor on friday to get a copy to show you, and i was told that a sample is not going to be available in the united states for six months, a sample, much less fabrication. the glass is made in germany, so it will be expensive and will add immeasurably to the energy of the project. another deadline it solution were bus shelters with clear glass with white lines through it, not something most people are going to want in their homes if they are paying a premium for a great view. other screens and design solutions like screens and netting are simply not an option in many of the
9:12 am
residential projects coming forward in the next two years. supervisor mar: ms. driscoll, is that just because of the cost or the availability of the technology? >> both. the planning department has put forward a variety of options, but there are cingular issues with each one of the options that they have laid out, -- there are singular issue is. here is what is workable and the environment. while the department was very helpful in looking at some of the zoning issues, i think these are something you have to face in the economic environment, as well as forcing some real changes and some real interpretation of the issues, so you have an embodied energy issue of bringing a product from germany, but you also have a problem with some of the glass samples that are very bird friendly.
9:13 am
i like that better rather than "bird safae." supervisor mar: please, wrap-up. i know there are some others who want to make comments. >> the efficiency of this glass versus its ability of what is qualified as bird safe. it needs to be clear when it is passed on to the planning department and put out for the architects to try to make this determination, because it is clearly a trade-off. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. >> we actually went to show you some of the things being proposed. -- we actually want to assure you. -- to show you. i am emily, a local architect in san francisco. i find myself sort of caught in
9:14 am
the middle. this is a particularly sensitive issue for me personally. my mother worked at the center for birds of prey, and i appreciate the plan to broaden efforts to do something about this important issue. -- and i appreciate the planning department efforts. the city is already very difficult to build in. the potential is a very nuanced, a technical issue. as stated in the guidelines, it includes taking many items into account, such as migratory patterns, and it goes on and on, and the selection of an exterior building materials is a similar process. it takes into account climate, recycled content, effect on energy consumption, durability, effect on the surrounding environment, and cost, and that, again, goes on. and exterior building materials
9:15 am
must be selected by ballots in all of these important issues. -- must be selected by balancing all of these important issues. i am here to discuss some of the technical challenges faced by architects in implementing it and some of the few technical issues that remain. the remaining technical issues in the document makes it hard to know exactly what constitutes a bird to save a building -- a bird-safe building. how do you know you have a bird safe building until it is costly to make changes? i brought some actual samples of things that are being proposed to sort of understand some of the problems that we have. [bell] supervisor mar: if you be --
9:16 am
could be quick in describing some of the examples of >> i will be quick. -- in describing some of the examples? >> i will be quick. supervisor mar: you should probably speak into the microphone so it is picked up. >> we have had trouble showing this to clients, saying, "this will be the view from your condominium or restaurant," as an example. this is the keeper since identity. dr. christine sheppard has been doing testing. one of the questions is what percentage is acceptable, for example. this is the 20% line pattern. i could not find an example, so it is a little more open. it is still pretty dense.
9:17 am
there is an additional technical issue. without going on forever, basically in a glass, you have a low-e coating. both of these want to be on the outer surfaces of the glass. the inner surface. the low-e coating also needs to be on a -- on one surface. this is a real issue. energy performance is certainly very important. supervisor mar: so, this, please summarize and rapid up. >> -- and rap -- wrap up. >> ok, this is part of the
9:18 am
guidelines, but it is still in the zoning. supervisor mar: so please wrap up. >> what we need is more specific guidelines so we know if we have met the guidelines or not. both in terms of density, reflectivity, low-e coatings. supervisor mar: thank you for bringing the samples, as well. next speaker. >> hi, my name is lynn, and i am a concerned citizen. i just want to say that i have been reading a lot lately about migrating birds. i know you know this. i just want to emphasize that they are making choices. they have different tools for
9:19 am
making navigation. i just keep imagining that they are flying, flying, and they see what they think is a safe place, and they hit the window hard, which is probably a very painful death. there is the san francisco responsibility to structure buildings. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. if there is anyone else who would like to speak, please come forward. thank you. >> hi, my name is judy irving. i am the producer and director "the wild parents -- perutz -- parrots of telegraph hill." this is the knicks, who as a baby smashed into a glass
9:20 am
windbreak on the top of the house on top of telegraph hill, smashed in so hard because phoenix did not see the glass that she went into a coma -- this is phoenix. the folks that found her thought that she was dead. they brought her to mark and me to bury. she came back to life. that is why she is known as phoenix, and we have been taking care of her for 10 years and will take care of her for the rest of her life, because she has a vision problems as a result of that crap up with the glass windbreak. -- that crack up. supervisor mar: she is one of the wild parrots? >> yes, and the babies come out
9:21 am
in september, and they are coming out now. they are trying to fly for the first time. they are smashing into windows like crazy. it is not just the migratory birds, but it is our own wild. -- wild parrots. i personally think this legislation does not go far enough. supervisor mar: what is your next project? >> thank you for asking. it is about the california brown pelican. supervisor mar: sir, it is great to see you. >> thank you, supervisor mar. for those of you who do not know me, i am a wildlife rehabilitator, and i have also worked with the santa cruz predatory bird group, working with falcons and others.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on